And why should we take seriously anyone who has a faith and feels that alone entitles them to a say in how others live their lives? It entitles them to nothing except their faith. Again, to quote Hitchens, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Now if they were basing their opinion on historical fact or some genuine experience in a relevant field of work, and could demonstrate that, I might understand. But to have someone prove their point of view today because it says, in a book written and rewritten by 100s, perhaps thousands of unknown people, that someone woke from the dead, claimed to be the son of god, walked on water, told stories and turned water into wine 2000 years ago is just, well, ridiculous. I understand the parables and the nice, ethical meanings and they have their place in Sunday schools for kids. But thats just teaching common sense and calling it religion.
~snip~
Lastly, to compare Hitchens and Dawkins to a madman like Pat Robertson smacks of desperation and uses the same tactics of the extremists who they bravely attack (Im not calling you an extremist btw!). Both put forward reasoned arguments with evidence to back up EVERY SINGLE thing they say, so the comparison isnt the best
A. First, there are plenty of atheists, agnostics and general unbelievers who believe that they are entitled what others believe and how they should live their lives. So this version of "holier than thou" doesn't cut it. Hitchens and Dawkins in their books absolutely did tell other people what to believe (or what not to believe) and regularly use insults and mockery to do it. They have (or had in Hitchens' case) faith in their own set of beliefs, especially since much of it does not rely on evidence. In fact, some are contradictory, such as his self-righteous attack on Mother Teresa because she gave hospice care. In doing so he appealed to some sort of morality that's based on his own subjective standard. A more consistent approach would have him accept that all of her behaviors were determined.
B. Their books are not full of historical facts, but a mix of facts and assertions. Big difference.
C. What you call ridiculous is pretty offensive to a lot of people. There are also works by scholars who have investigated this things that you dismiss, and they came to very different conclusions after evaluating all of the evidence. On the resurrection, for example, Gary Habermas has done some excellent work. Rather than just slam beliefs because you don't like them, look over the facts, evidence and arguments, then come to an educated conclusion. It's not without reason that the world's top atheist analytic philosopher, Antony Flew, who spent years debating Christians, left atheism for theism.
D. As for Camarel's comparison, the evidence would show that despite your opinion of Pat Robertson he has done far more for the poor and needy than Hitchens and Dawkins combined.
